Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday March 31, 2011 @12:38PM
from the played-by-ben-afleck-I-hope dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "Wisconsin Republicans claim that no one else can republish a video of United States Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) complaining about how he is 'struggling' to get by on his $174,000 salary without their permission, even though they originally released the video on YouTube for the whole world to see. Now the GOP is trying to take legal action to stop anyone else from republishing the video. The tape caused a stir for Duffy, a first-term conservative best known for his past as a reality TV show star on MTV's The Real World after Democrats flagged the comments about his taxpayer-funded salary, which is nearly three times the median income in Wisconsin, and criticisms began to flow Duffy's way. Here's a one-minute clip, excerpted from roughly 45 minutes of video of the public Duffy townhall, that the Polk County GOP doesn't want anyone to see."

Even though I personally think the Republican party is worse there is little integrity from any political party right now. They are for openness until it runs against their own interests then they are against it. They want cuts until it hurts their re-election in their district. They will take any side they are paid to take. Our system has totally broken down and is beginning to resemble the systems that people in the middle east are currently protesting about. It's very sad... the whole thing is going to hell.

The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this. It's not Duffy's statement itself that gets me, as dumb as it is, as the attempt to use legal means to remove information that's already been deliberately released to the public, which is the exact definition of censorship. The Wikileaks frenzy is similar, but that's a bipartisan madness. This one is all on the Republicans.

The Democrats have done plenty of nasty stuff, to be sure, but I honestly can't think of anything they've done lately, all on their own, that's so blatantly anti-American as this.

I'm an independent. I hate Republicans for acting like Republicans and I hate Democrats for acting like Republicans. The stuff I'm furious at Obama for isn't all left and socialist; I'm furious at him for all the Bush league stuff he's doing. Unitary executive, expanded wars, expanded deficits, passionate fellation of big business interests, disregard for civil liberties, the plight of the common American, and all the goddamn promises he made when was running for office.

Americans hope lobbyist Jack Weldon will finally give them a voice in Washington.

WASHINGTONâ"Citing a desire to gain influence in Washington, the American people confirmed Friday that they have hired high-powered D.C. lobbyist Jack Weldon of the firm Patton Boggs to help advance their agenda in Congress.

Known among Beltway insiders for his ability to sway public policy on behalf of massive corporations such as Johnson & Johnson, Monsanto, and AT&T, Weldon, 53, is expected to use his vast network of political connections to give his new client a voice in the legislative process.

Weldon is reportedly charging the American people $795 an hour.

"Unlike R.J. Reynolds, Pfizer, or Bank of America, the U.S. populace lacks the access to public officials required to further its legislative goals," a statement from the nation read in part. "Jack Weldon gives us that access."

"His daily presence in the Capitol will ensure the American people finally get a seat at the table," the statement continued. "And it will allow him to advance our message that everyone, including Americans, deserves to be represented in Washington."

Enlarge Image

Weldon says he hopes to spin the American public, above, as a group worth Congress' time.

The 310-million-member group said it will rely on Weldon's considerable clout to ensure its concerns are taken into account when Congress addresses issues such as education, immigration, national security, health care, transportation, the economy, affordable college tuition, infrastructure, jobs, equal rights, taxes, Social Security, the environment, housing, the national debt, agriculture, energy, alternative energy, nutrition, imports, exports, foreign relations, the arts, and crime.

Sources confirmed that Weldon is already scheduled to have drinks Monday with several members of the Senate Appropriations Committee to discuss saving the middle class.

"If you have a problem, say, with America's atrocious treatment of its veterans, you can't just pick up a phone and call your local congressman," Weldon told reporters from his office on K Street Monday. "You need someone on the inside who understands how democracy works; someone who knows how to grease the wheels a little."

Weldon said that after successfully advocating on behalf of Goldman Sachs and BP, he is relishing the opportunity to lobby for the American people, calling it the "challenge of a lifetime." The veteran D.C. power player admitted that his new client is at a disadvantage because it lacks the money and power of other groups.

"The goal is to make it seem politically advantageous for legislators to keep the American people in mind when making laws," Weldon said. "Lawmakers are going to ask me, 'Why should I care about the American people? What's in it for me?' And it will be up to me and my team to find some reason why they should consider putting poverty and medical care for children on the legislative docket."

"To be honest," Weldon added, "the American people have always been perceived as a little naÃve when it comes to their representative government. But having me on their side sends a clear message that they're finally serious and want to play ba

They're all pretty much the same, just protecting their position of privilege and generally being incompetent at the jobs they were hired to do. They have the sweetest possible health plan, six digit salaries most Americans will never see, automatic raises every year, a goddamn concrete bunker somewhere in case a nuclear war or zombie invasion ever happens and they're completely worthless when it comes to actually showing leadership and running the country. Meanwhile, many of them are on record as saying un

Nothing was "shoved down anyones throat". The republicans were pretty good at neutering obamacare. Although that's kind of what they are there for.

Republicans are great at "party discipline". It makes for very effective obstructionism when they are in the minority. Although this means that each individual republican is less like a free man and more like a member of the communist party.

There is more than one way to cast the "opposing party" as some sort of "godless communists".

There's something I love about the GOP. On one hand, they want to make it the "personal responsibility of everyone to $pay_for_whatever", on the other hand they don't want to pay wages that lets people do just that.

If you believe providing healthcare to a country's citizens to be facisim, I'm sure there is space available for you in Somalia (a libertarian paradise). You pay taxes for roads, schools, police and fire protection, regulation that protects YOU (DOT, EPA, etc). Healthcare is no different. We're the only first world country with a pathetic healthcare system, and it'd be cheaper to bitch about it than to go all tea party crazy like you're doing.

Some of that is all factored in. The health insurance industry is a for profit industry. Each year they post record profits and increase rates. Logic would say that rates should not increase unless REQUIRED to cover policy holders.

But thats not the case. The rates are increased to increase profits.

Yes, malpractice insurance is high.... but for the same DAMN REASON. So you cant say that its malpractices fault, and none of the health insurance industry's.

Insurance is insurance. Its a for profit industry that has squeezed the living shit out of both doctors and patients.

My mother-in-law (a small business owner) can afford health insurance now, via the high risk pool in her state. Thanks to "Obamacare" she can get insurance for herself and her husband for $700 a month, rather than the $2,000 a month that the insurance company offers.

From an insurance perspective, in the individual market "high risk" is anyone not a healthy 20 something. Older people are by default riskier because the vast majority of health care costs are consumed in the first 6 and last 6 months of life. Be that as it may, given life spans of people, and the fact that medicare kicks in mid-60's the risk isn't nearly as huge are they make it out to be. You'll also find in states that require health insurance to be "not-for-profit" that the individual policies would n

First, I appreciate that you approached this in a cautious way. Nicely stated.

Before we go any further, I wish to respectfully point out a couple of things:1. The whole idea behind insurance of any sort is that many low-cost users will subsidize the costs incurred by a few high cost users. Nothing has changed here.2. If I apportion my thanks as you suggest, I can't really thank any government act for any benefit, since they are all paid for by taxpayers. (I suppose I could be thankful if the government gave me a tax break, but my kids are going to pay for that . . . besides, taxes buy civilization.)

Now, to the specifics:I am aware of how the system works, and honestly, I think this is an improvement. In the previous system, EXACTLY the same thing happens, with the exception that insurance companies (who are motivated by shareholder profit, not any sense of altruism) can selectively price populations out of the market. That they choose to do this to people with expensive medical problems is no coincidence, I am sure.

Now, I believe that insurance serves a valuable purpose, but it requires that lots of people participate in order to work efficiently, and "Obamacare" has been able to extend it to a larger population, in a much more equitable way. I have no objections to this. Also, as a person who kibitzes with doctors on a regular basis, I would point out a benefit that is often overlooked: giving a person access to affordable insurance, even if it is subsidized, reduces healthcare costs for everyone else because hospitals no longer have to recoup the cost of unpaid services from all other patients.

Ultimately, my attitude is this: I, as a taxpayer, am happy to pay a bit extra to help others get the medical care they need. I'm not rich, but I have everything I need, and I can afford to pay a bit more to help out my fellow citizens who lack the means to help themselves. If I may get up on my soap box for a moment: We like to say that we belong to the greatest, richest, most powerful nation on earth. To say that we cannot make a relatively small sacrifice to ensure that our fellow citizens get access to basic medical care says something entirely different about us, something I never want to hear truthfully said about myself.

I find it difficult to believe that Gonzales v. Raich [wikipedia.org] is constitutional when it basically decided that the Feds can regulate anything they damn well please under the Commerce Clause, but Obamacare is not. Granted, one is proscriptive and the other prescriptive, but it still seems hypocritical and inconsistent to be in favor of one and not the other. Interesting how Repubs scream "state's rights!" when it bolsters their cause then support federal power (E.g. Defense of Marriage Act) when that seems like the

I agree. Someone please tell me: which is the anti-bailout party? Which one says, "Yes, I'm willing to risk a supposed economic upheaval rather than be perpetually held hostage to plutocratic, incompetent banks that want to keep our society in the dark ages of entrepreneurship by having privileged access to ultra-cheap loans and government backstops." (And most Americans would be with such a party that said as much.)

Bush started the bailouts and Obama went right along and continued the same policy. Appa

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse doe to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship. ~ Alexander Tyler, 1787

Not necessarily. All three of my Mom's siblings in Appalachia are on Social Security Disability. All of them are lifetime Republicans. And one of them used to be a trucker in the Teamster's union. I predict they will keep voting Republican even if Republicans cut their one-and-only income. They are stubborn and stupid. They, and thousands like them, go against your paying for votes claim.

Paying for votes does work pretty reliably in the other direction. Marsha Blackburn of Net Neutrality fame rakes in gobs

Hate them all you want, but you have to hand them one thing: They managed to hype people into enough hysteria to go against their own best interest.

I honestly stand in awe in front of those people. How did they pull that off? They pretty much TOLD them that they'll be their worst nightmare and managed to get these people to cheer for it. How did they do that?

While I don't think it's fair to compare unions representing 100k's of people for making contributions that benefit them, to the contributions of the 2 Koch brothers which in no way represent the interests of their workers I will grant that in theory the issue is the same on both sides.

As a serious question, on the issue that both sides give political money to candidates:

Why is it even legal to give money to an organization associated with a politician? Last I checked that was a 'bribe'. I know the free speech angle, but a bribe is just money for a particular action; how is that conceptually different from giving money to a politicians PAC? It's not like they don't give the donors preferential treatment right?

I mean if I give money to 'Tony' so that his brother 'Luigi' might go do something I like and Luigi is my representative...that would clearly be illegal wouldn't it?

Not trying to be snarky here, seriously asking the legal ideas behind this. I'd actually prefer that there be *no* money in politics. Buy all the ads you want I don't care, but if a politician takes money from *anybody* that should be a conflict of interest shouldn't it?

Actually it is different. As a union member I have one vote, just like everybody else in the union. As a share holder, I only have votes in proportion of my stock to everybody else. Hell many stocks are 'non-voting' shares so you have zero input.

Or to use my example, how much vote do you think the average share holder of Koch industries has? oh wait they are private....

Really? Then what would you call a $3.2 billion dollar tax credit given to General Electric on top of zero corporate income tax? What would you call allowing corporations to pay unlimited amounts of money to finance campaigns of people who will vote for giving them this corporate welfare? That's that's not even one step away from "paying cash for votes". That skips over the whole "votes" thing entirely and is simply paying cash for favorable laws.

"Social services" have not put this country in debt, despite the common meme. The only reason there is a single dollar of government spending in Social Security is because congress after congress sold securities using Social Security money as collateral and now they've got to make those securities good. You could argue that if there had not been the Social Security trust fund (and yes, it's an actual trust fund with actual value) the federal surplus would be much much higher. Social Security is actually keeping the deficit down not increasing it. Social Security has not added one nickel to our debt or deficit.

When Bill Clinton raised taxes on the top tier 3%, to a total 39% (which ends up being about 12% (or less) on total income of the wealthiest) we ended up with a surplus.

Every single time the tax rate on the highest income level went below 50%, GDP dropped, unemployment increased and bubble economies developed because the top income group had to find places to put their money. Every time the tax rate on the highest income levels went ABOVE 50%, GDP increased, unemployment decreased and there were no bubble economies. When tax rates go above 50%, wealthy people start looking for longer term ways to grow their money to avoid paying taxes on it, so they invest in their companies' infrastructure, hire new people, pay dividends, etc.

If you look at a graph of the US economy and overlay a graph of tax rates on the top incomes, you'll see something very remarkable. The most certain way to increase employment, increase GDP, shrink the debt, prevent economic bubbles and to insure long term growth is to simply increase the tax rates on the richest, even though this does not require them to pay more taxes.

Instead, we're looking to blame "social programs" and those greedy, freeloading schoolteachers, firemen, police, janitors, garbage men, clerks for our economic woes. The budget that was recently passed by the Republican House of Representatives, cuts nutrition programs to infants and pregnant women in poverty (the "WIC" program) in order to pay for tax cuts for millionaires. What kind of a third-rate country are we going to become with these jackoffs in control?

In my second paragraph above, it should read, "You could argue that if there had not been the Social Security trust fund (and yes, it's an actual trust fund with actual value) the federal deficit would be much much higher."

I apologize for the error. I get all worked up when I see this kind of Right-wing corporatist bullshit and it sometimes causes me to type too fast.

"Social services" have not put this country in debt, despite the common meme.

If you look at the 2010 federal budget, you'll see that social security cost $695 billion and health care cost $743 billion. If $1.438 trillion does not contribute to put the country in debt then nothing does, there is no item costing more in the budget.

As for taxing the rich, it works only up to the point when they move out of the country. Then you start complaining about outsourcing and wondering why corporations prefer to invest overseas instead of paying the taxes in your country.

If you look at the 2010 federal budget, you'll see that social security cost $695 billion and health care cost $743 billion. If $1.438 trillion does not contribute to put the country in debt then nothing does, there is no item costing more in the budget.

But those billions for Social Security and Health Care are spent on Americans and paid for by Americans. And neither of those items is part of the discretionary budget which is what people mean when they talk about "government spending". These are both programs which all Americans qualify for (and only Americans) and are the two most popular programs of the federal government by far.

And the $700 billion spent on defense (Department of Defense plus Department of Energy) IS part of the discretionary budget (government spending). And unlike Social Security or Medicare, the level of benefit that citizens obtain from that $700 billion is arguable.

As for taxing the rich, it works only up to the point when they move out of the country.

We have had top tax rates as high as 90%. Where do you think "the rich" are going to go to avoid taxes? Even under Clinton (when we had a budget surplus) they were paying the lowest income taxes in the developed world. Are they going to move to Sweden? The UK? IAnd should we really set our top tax rates based upon some fictional Galtian blackmail threat that will never occur?

While I personally think Corporations should only have to pay taxes on profits from goods produced overseas, I must agree somewhat with the previous poster. GE paid no federal taxes. None. Nada. Zip. This was in fact mentioned on Fox News as well as CNN and others. It is a fact. Now I'm sure their employees pay taxes and I can't speak to what they pay in State or Local taxes but for federal it was a big zero. Don't know about the tax credit thing however.

Do you have a source for such a graph? Not being a dick here, I'd like to see it.

Yes. Tax rates from 1900 to date is one dataset. GDP during the same period is another dataset. Employment rates are a third.

Those are my sources. Both are extremely easy to find. You will notice a slight lag of GDP behind the changes in tax law, because GDP is responding to those changes in tax law.

I'll let you overlay the graphs yourself, because if I send you to the place where someone has done the work for you, you will say "Oh, those graphs were made by liberals as a way of disregarding the data. If you do it yourself, you won't be able to claim that it's invalid because of the ideology of the economist who put them together. But try it. It works as I describe.

You are correct, the Republicrat party and it's (for the most part) amoral, parasitic, corrupt and indifferent members have most Americans so suspicious and apathetic that even the idea of feeding the poor and housing the elderly have become politically viable issues.

After all we've got THREE useless, BULLSHIT wars to fight now! Wouldn't want Halliburton to lose money, now would we?

Buying politicians isn't ever going to go away. Unions are the balance to corporations, which is why corporate-held politicians are pushing so hard to dissolve them. Not only are Unions fighting for anti-corporate working conditions for their members, but they're supporting pro-union politicians that have a chance of replacing the politicians who are more interested in what's good for big-business than working-class people.

What we need, of course, is to ban political contributions by all groups of people working together. If individuals want to donate money and indicate that they are donating money on behalf of an organization, that's fine, but it should have to be the individual writing the check from his or her own bank account.

It should be illegal for any organization—union or corporation—to take money entrusted to them by shareholders or members and use it for political contributions. This small change would significantly reduce the ability of corporations to buy votes, and would do so in an evenhanded manner.

Next, we should make it illegal for someone to accept money in exchange for lobbying. Paid lobbyists unfairly elevate the voices of a small number of individuals (corporate CEOs) over the public as a whole in a way that cannot effectively be countered except with an outright ban on the activity.

People should be free to lobby for their employers' positions on their own time if they choose to do so, of course, but paid lobbyists are an affront to democracy, and it should be illegal to do so on company time. Similarly, it should be illegal to punish a worker for not lobbying on their own time.

Finally, we should cut the salaries of everyone in Congress to levels comparable with those of people in their districts, provide members of Congress with free paid government housing in D.C. so that they can afford to come up there to work, and mandate that politicians spend a minimum of two-thirds of their time in their districts to be eligible for reelection. This would ensure that politicians continue to understand what's happening on the ground in their districts.

When our government was originally conceived, Congresspeople were supposed to meet for a couple of weeks out of the year. It is the perversion of Congressional duties into a year-round job that has done more harm to our government's ability to represent the people than probably any other mistake in its history. Imagine if lobbying firms had to send lobbyists out to a hundred, two hundred, three hundred different towns across the United States instead of sending a couple of people to Washington D.C. You get the picture.

This is the great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.

This is the great story here, for anybody willing to find it and write about it and explain it, is this vast right-wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president.

Fair use, a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work, is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders. Examples of fair use include commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.

And, I've heard the same damn whining and trying to cover up for that lapse of good judgement by the party in question with the Democrats.

Can you cite a recent example where a Democrat elected to national office said something really dumb which (a) was deliberately propagated by the Democratic Party, and then (b) the party tried to use legal means to make "unhappen" once they realized how dumb it was? The first happens all the time -- they're politicians, after all -- but the second is what makes it really scary.

They aren't using the "big lie" strategy... at least not right now. The Republicans are currently in a mode (and have been for 10 years) where they repeat falsehoods over and over and claim ignorance. However I am pretty sure the Democrats, as much as they would prefer to keep falsehoods out of the debate and keep it factual, are going to have to deploy the same strategy just to keep up.

Thank you, Your Grace, for the field upon which my family and I labor! I gladly offer to you the greater part of my crops, in return for your continued beneficence! True, my hut is collapsing and my children cry with hunger while yours grow fat in your castle, but I understand that this is the natural order of things as ordained by God, and I swear to you that I pay no attention to those troublemakers who suggest otherwise!

Agreed. Why, if GE would've had to pay even a dime of federal taxes this year, the repercussions would've been dire for us all. Dire, I tell you!

An excellent example of exactly what he's talking about. Despite how high taxes are, GE still didn't pay anything. Raising taxes will not change that. The rich who are affected by the high taxes on the rich have the money to pay people to figure out the loopholes so they pay as little as possible. But, with higher taxes, the government expects more money, so they assume they have a larger budget, but when tax time rolls around, oops! No more money than before comes in, putting us further into debt.

Now, tax reform to simplify tax law, reduce loopholes, etc, I think is something both parties can get behind (though getting the politicians to actually vote for it against the wills of the lobbyists would be more difficult). And that, if done right, would actually help.

Let's see, last time we had a depression and recession, it was fixed by raising the taxes on the wealthy (they went up over 75%!!) and then they decided we needed more jobs (despite having lowered unemployment) so we lowered the taxes on the wealthy and businesses considerably. Yet unemployment continued to rise and it didn't change much.

Obviously there are other factors involved here, but it's fairly obvious based on history that taxing the wealthy more will either do nothing or will help. Lowering the taxes on them doesn't create jobs they just concentrate their wealth among themselves. Trickle down economics just doesn't work.

Lets just drop that old saw right now. Taxing the top 10% does NOT discourage job creation..... taxes can encourage growth.

Taxes are based upon PROFIT. Give a wealthy man a choice between paying taxes or investing in his assets/employees/business, they will choose to create jobs.

By having low taxes on the top 10%, you encourage them to pocket as much money as they can....and use that money to buy up competition. You are then encouraging larger monopolistic businesses...which I feel are less efficient, worse for the economy, worse for the country, less rewarding to their staff, and then are "too big to fail".

On the contrary, tax the heck out record profits, and you encourage the top 10% to invest in their people/business/assets.....thereby helping the economy.

Am I missing something. Seems like common sense to me. I don't think the democrats understand economics either though....

Nope. Copyright still belongs to the person who made the recording. (The Zapruder film, for instance, which showed the assassination of President Kennedy is owned by the Zapruder family.) However, there is a pretty good case for fair use in this case, especially since this Duffy video is being used for news reporting/commentary purposes.

It sounds like there were many people recording this particular appearance. Surely the Republican party would not have a legal leg to stand on with regards to pulling clips made by multiple people. I could understand if the Polk Cnty. Republicans wanted to pull their particular recording, but what if somebody else were to release the clip that they made into the public domain? IANAL, so if somebody could explain that to me, I'd really appreciate it.

And that is probably half the problem right there. Perhaps instead all members of congress/senate/president should be forced to have -no- salary and live in taxpayer provided dorm housing w/ meals. With all upgrades to housing and/or meal plans must be voted on on the national level by the registered voting public -not- by the members of congress themselves.

Perhaps if it was a actual sacrifice to serve your country in that particular capacity again we might get some people who are half decent running.

It's called rent. And for $1000/mo ($12k/yr) he can easily rent a studio apt in DC that he'll use less than 30 weeks a year (congress has about 22-24 weeks of recess each year). It may even be deductible as a business expense. So for that $25,000, he's got to shell out $12,000 in rent and $3k in utilities.

Neither. of those 7, only 3 or 4 will grow up to work (less than 50% of the country is employed, btw). The problem right now is that there are TOO MANY HUMANS for our economy (and, arguably, our planet). One of the big problems right now is that we have 10% unemployment, and we have to creat 150,000 jobs every single month just to break even. We really don't need more people in the workforce. Quite honestly, we need less.

I won't argue that a crack whore is a good family. Anyone having a child should be r

In the distinguished and comely congressperson's defense, no matter how much money you're making, all you really need to do to cripple yourself financially is buy a house. My wife and I make decent money and went ahead and purchased a small but expensive (well...it *was* expensive...) home in a quiet neighborhood with a tennis club we could walk to. We have extra income still, but we think of how much more of it we might have if our monthly bills for the house hadn't tripled compared to the last house we owned. But it's a choice, and we have no one to blame but ourselves. Same as this guy in the article.

"The Examiner reports that Wisconsin Republicans claim that no one else can republish a video of United States Representative Sean Duffy (R-WI) complaining about how he is 'struggling' to get by on his $174,000 salary without their permission, even though they originally released the video on YouTube for the whole world to see

Well, I have to say the GOP may have a case here. Releasing it on You Tube 'for the whole world to see' does not mean giving up their rights under copyright. (Yes, there are fair use exceptions - but political attacks don't fall under fair use.)

Reporting news is fair use. And reporting his actual words is not a political attack. Any damage done to him is done by his own mouth, not by the reportage. He said he was barely capable of surviving on his salary and benefits, which easily top 200K a year. He wants to cut the pay and compensation of teachers, who make 50-60K a year at most, calling them overpaid spendthrifts and cheats. That is NEWS. He is a blatant hypocrite by word and deed. And a destructive one - he is directly responsible for the dest

I mean, teachers work 6 hour days for 180 days a year, right? For less than 4x a teacher's salary, the WI legislature is in session for almost 60 days (http://legis.wisconsin.gov/leginfo/session.htm) every single year. I don't know how he ever has a chance to spend time with his family.

The guy isn't saying hes struggling on his 174k salary, the guy just started getting this level of pay, and if you watch the video hes saying hes only had one paycheck at this salary so far and hes still got alot of debt and what not from his education/family situation. He says once he gets more paychecks he'll probably be doing alot better.

Can we not do the same type of stupid out of context/deliberate misinterpretation slanderous crap that everyone with a brain is already really tired of?

People talking about hypocrisy and integrity about this story are just as bad as the people they are complaining about.

Silence: Then Janice, a nice enough woman, it seems, slowly raises her hand, offering a faint smile, as if to say, You got me!

"Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"

"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."

"But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"

"Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much."

The article is a sad, revealing story of the hypocrisy of the Tea Party and it's members...

His point of view is entirely consistent. He's worked his whole life for a modest paycheck, and his wife sounds like she genuinely needs medicare. He's also been told that there are many, many people out there abusing the system and guidelines that he's worked within his whole life.

The sad part is that he seems completely willing to accept a narrative that would prove false if he'd simply spend a few hours on google.

ayn rand writes out of concern for the poor downtrodden captains of industry. it sounds like a joke. nominally, this is an audience of 0.001% of the population with every perk in life you can imagine

but aspirationally, everyone is a future captain of industry inside their own minds. so they actually sympathize with the captains of industry, their "peers." while the real world captains of industry are paying off their elected representatives to betray middle class interests to fatten corporate coffers (less safety regulations, lower wages, less healthcare responsibility, etc.)

joe blow imagines himself a big man, inside his own head. waiting for the day he wins the lottery and joins his rightful place alongside other great men like himself. so of course he happily shafts policies that effects his next door neighbors, his city and town, the future of his children and their education, and even himself, his healthcare. so blinded is he

it's a neat psychological trick: everyone is a legend in their own minds. and it is why political philosophies written for the benefit of ultrarich fat cats robbing the middle class blind are seen as normal and appealing to people who otherwise suffer through every day hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck, with nothing to show for the toil. sad and pathetic, in a way. and completely real, and common

"Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it."

The thing is, story line that Republicans have fed the public for decades is essentially "Democrats have taken your money via high taxes and given it to black crackhead felons in the inner cities as 'welfare', who use it to buy drugs, bling, and fancy cars." So when someone who's heard nothing but this story and never spent significant time in the inner cities thinks about welfare recipients, what they think is not "that guy in my church who gets by on a government check" but "urban black crackhead felon". So what he's actually saying is "stop giving my hard-earned cash to urban black crackhead felons".

This perception doesn't match reality (most welfare recipients are white, many are rural, most aren't felons, most aren't using illegal drugs), but when it's the only message you've ever heard about the issue, it's what you're going to believe, not because you're stupid but because simply because you've never heard or seen anything to the contrary. It would be sort of like living in a time when everyone knows that all the celestial bodies move around the Earth: It sure looks that way, and you've been hearing your priest (who's almost definitely the most educated guy in town, remember) talk about how God made it that way all your life. Chances are you'd believe it.

Its relevant because he claims to be struggling. If congress folks were paid, say 70K a year it might be more understandable but at $174 which is much higher than the average family in America its hard not to see him as an ass, especially while his party is attempting to drive down the salary of folks who are getting by on a lot less money right now in order to save enough money to have tax cuts for people like themselves.

Who said it was OK what Charlie Rangel is doing, or what Geithner did or what Biden is doing? No one did. You can put away the straw man. This is about a two-bit political hack who is bitching about the fact that making three times the state average is not enough, yet thinks that others making much less still make too much.

Not to get in the way of everyone bashing a congressmen (everyone's favorite activity) but he talked about struggling because of a direct question from a constituent angry about his salary level which he didn't choose (it's standard for all congress), and when he JUST became a congressmen (he's gotten 1 check). So he's not really just off the cuff complaining here, he's trying to defuse the situation with the questioner explaining to them that it's not like he's living high on the hog off their money but is instead paying of student loans, driving a used minivan, and paying mortgages on the residences he has to maintain in both his home state and DC (incredibly expensive). He's basically just trying to empathize with the questioner to defuse the situation which he has no control over.

He published something, allowed comments on it, didn't like the comments, and wants to take it down? No problem. But even after taking down your file, others are allowed to use that captured content under fair use terms, like all news of a public servant making a public speech where the press was invited.

Is he going to all the newspapers that published a written account of his speech?
How about knocking on doors requesting to cut the article out of the delivered

National politicians make much more than just their salary. Their influence, leverage, connections and media interest insures that they can all easily be multimillionaires. When you tally up all the opportunities they have, like books and public appearances, as well as private sector opportunities, I'm sure that most national politicians make more than their equivalently ranked counterparts in movies and sports.

The American myth of upward mobility is nothing more than that, a myth. Pretending that you can rise into money with nothing but talent is simply not true. It is a story we tell children to help justify the rich's selfishness. The simple fact of the matter is that the number one correlation that exists for a person's wealth in America is their parent's wealth. If you want to be rich, you need a wealthy family, not hard work. But if it makes you feel better, keep believing that everyone that is poor smokes pot all day or does something else to limit themselves. It makes the bitter pill of our horrible class discrepancy go down a little easier. But it is a lie. plain and simple. America is actually ranked quite low globally in upward mobility, and as we let corporations and the rich run amok without regulation and taxes, the situation only gets worse.

If you want quality talent, and people more difficult to bribe/influence, you MUST pay them well.

Your proposal has 3 major problems:1. How well? What's comparable to a president, senator, or representative? I mean, if we're going to pay the president the same as a CEO of a major corporation, we're going to be talking about $50 million a year. If we put senators and representatives at a bit lower on the pay scale, then $10 million wouldn't be unreasonable.

2. If you're going to spend that kind of money on politicians, you're going to need to pay for it somehow. Who are you going to tax, or what agency are you going to cut, in order to pay for it? You're talking about $50 billion here, which isn't exactly chump change.

3. There's no clear correlation between bribery and politician salary. For instance, it wouldn't be hard to argue that bribery in the US is more widespread than in the UK, even though MPs are paid less than Congressmen.

I think the real issue is the Republican talking points. Honestly, I'm sure politicians, even the assholes, work hard... and I'll give that they might be worth $175k a year. The asshole nature of this man is that he wants to strip moderate or low paying workers of their rights and telling them "They need to give more" but is NEVER willing to suggest that people who are well off ($175k IS well off) should EVER have to give anything. When I was teaching in Minneapolis, I made $37k a year. I paid for rent in 2 apartments and utilities, bought classroom supplies and commuted 30 miles a day to work. I still had more than enough disposable income to put some away each month. Now assholes like this guy say "Oh but public employees need to give back"... you know what, that's fine, I'm willing to take a pay cut... but the mere NOTION that someone who makes hundreds of thousands, millions or BILLIONS of dollars should have to pay higher taxes is OUTRAGEOUS to republicans and tea party members.

Social services, public employees, working moms, day cares... fuck, you name it, republicans want to cut it... but a wealthy individual should pay 39% taxes instead of 36%... that's UNAMERICAN and it stifles economic development!! Guys like Duffy are the worst kind of asshole... ones with the power to BE an asshole. Democrats might be jerks... but they're not blatant assholes out to strip working people of everything they have left... incensed at the notion that wealthy people should pay more taxes. Mark Dayton, multimillionaire grandson of the founder of Daytons/Target and president of Minnesota advocated raising the top tax rate on wealthy earners such as himself. Republicans like Duffy (and Mike Lemieur, MN 12B - 320-632-3922 ) say No! We need to balance the budget by cutting programs for working families and stripping public employees of their rights... but they'll be DAMNED if you try to raise taxes on high income earners (Sean Duffey, making $175k wouldn't even meet the higher proposed tax bracket... but is STILL an asshole about it).

Fuck this lot of Republicans... THAT'S why people are upset about this. Take take take take... but be damned if themselves or the wealthy should ever have to sacrifice.

Yes it has helped GE tremendously. They paid 0 billion dollars in taxes on 14.2 billion dollars in profit last year and and has moved tens of thousands of jobs overseas since 2009. Lets lower the tax rate more!

When you can transfer high profit items like patents and software to subsidiaries overseas while keeping high cost items like legal departments and exec teams in the US you can game the tax system completely. You could raise the tax rate to 100% and you would still see many multinational companies mak